Governance and Funding for Open and Transparent Water Data Implementing Assembly Bill 1755

May 10, 2018

Table of Contents Project Overview ................................................................................ 3

1. Overview of findings ..................................................................... 4

1.1 Water Data is Essential Infrastructure ................................................................... 4

1.2 A Federated, Use-Case Driven Platform Is Needed ........................................ 6

1.3 A Consortium Engages Stakeholders and Builds Trust ................................. 7

Table 1. Overview of governance groups ................................................................... 8

1.4 Sustainable Platform Funding Is Achievable ...................................................... 8

2. Platform Governance .................................................................. 11

2.1 Applying the federated platform vision to governance ............................. 11

2.2 Scope of AB 1755 governance ............................................................................. 12

2.3 Platform governance involves four functions ................................................. 14

2.4 Institutionalizing data governance ...................................................................... 19

3. Sustainable Platform Funding................................................... 26

3.1 Funding principles ...................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Funding needs for AB 1755 implementation ................................................. 26

3.3 A sustainable funding model for the Consortium ........................................ 30

4. Moving to Platform Implementation ...................................... 33

2

Redstone Strategy Group is a leading advisor to private foundations and non-

profits worldwide. We help clients identify their highest-return investments,

track and learn from results, and continually improve their efforts to solve

urgent social problems. Our approach combines substantial experience across

all sectors of philanthropy with deep appreciation of our clients’ knowledge and

expertise. This allows us to collaborate effectively with clients as they improve

their ability to achieve social good and learn from their results

The Water Foundation is a nonprofit strategic philanthropy working to

fundamentally transform how we manage water in the West. We help funders

identify and act on opportunities to better manage water and engage in

thoughtful, strategic grantmaking to our nonprofit partners to drive change. We

complement these activities with creative coalition building and thoughtful

engagement with high-level decision makers.

3

Project Overview California is facing water challenges driven by climate change, population growth, and

delayed investments in green and gray infrastructure. Many actors across local, state,

federal, tribal, private, non-profit, and other sectors will need to work together to

meet these challenges. Data is an important tool that can create common

understanding, produce consistent monitoring, and support adaptive management.

While state, local and tribal governments collect and maintain a great deal of water

related data, many of these data sets fall short of their potential to meet California’s

needs.

The passage of Assembly Bill 1755 (Dodd, 2016) opened the door for the state to

transform its water and ecosystem data and information infrastructure, enabling the

next generation of water management. Since water data reside in many agencies and

entities, with benefits for both public and private stakeholders, implementation of AB

1755 must, by nature, be highly collaborative to fulfill its highest potential.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) is leading the effort, in collaboration

with a variety of state partners (“the Partners”).1 The California Council on Science

and Technology (CCST) and UC Water led the development of use-cases describing

how integrated data can improve water management. Meanwhile, the Open Water

Information Architecture (OWIA) group provided technical support around protocol

and standards development. The Partners, informed by the CCST/UC Water and

OWIA work, along with this process and stakeholder engagement, released a progress

report in January 2018. The progress report, which included an initial draft Strategic

Plan and Preliminary Protocols, describes a vision, principles, goals, strategies, and

framework to guide implementation of the bill.

While the Partners are developing the strategy, Redstone Strategy Group ran a parallel

process to explore governance and funding structures for the nascent Platform. This

work built on the vision articulated by the Partners, and aimed to answer the

following questions:

1. What are the governance needs associated with implementation of AB 1755?

2. What organizational structure(s) would best meet these governance needs?

3. How can governance promote a sustainable funding model for AB 1755?

To answer these questions, Redstone interviewed over thirty experts and stakeholders

in California and across the country. While we had regular opportunities for input and

feedback from the Partners, the report that follows is independent. It reflects the

findings and judgments of the authors, and has not been endorsed by California state

government. It is our aim, however, that these findings will contribute to the ongoing

1 The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Water Quality Monitoring Council (CWQMC), California Natural Resources Agency, Government Operations Agency (GovOps), Delta Stewardship Council, and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR).

4

collaborative process that the state is leading to create the data infrastructure that will

allow open and transparent exchange of water data to support decision-making.

The report begins with an overview of our findings, followed by a detailed account of

recommendations around platform governance (chapter 2), and sustainable funding

(chapter 3).

1. Overview of findings

1.1 Water Data is Essential Infrastructure

Data infrastructure is as essential as roads and bridges

Data is raw material for both economic growth and sustainable management of our environment. But unlike raw materials from the past century – oil, steel, minerals – data, particularly public data, becomes more valuable the more widely it is shared.

To realize this value, California must plan, create, and invest in public water data, just as it does in roads, sewer systems, and water treatment plants. These investments will ensure that the state has adequate water to meet the competing demands of a growing economy, a growing population, and the environment – a challenge made more difficult by extreme weather in a warming climate.

The return on investment for increased access to public data is significant

Physical infrastructure creates great benefits for the economy; so too does data infrastructure. These benefits are diverse and generate positive returns for state government, citizens, and the environment. While estimates vary, a study in 2000 by the Open Data Institute found that the economic return from investment in increased access to public data averaged 39X in the US. 2

The economic value of data varies across sectors. Geospatial and environmental data, which include hydrological, environmental quality, and land-use information, tends to generate the highest return,3 and is core to water data infrastructure. Box 1 illustrates some of those potential returns.

AB 1755 affirms the value of water data infrastructure for California’s future

In passing AB 1755, the state of California embraced the importance of water data

infrastructure to a sustainable water future for the state. Indeed, the legislation and

governor highlighted open and transparent water data infrastructure as vital to not

only water management, but also to the state’s interest in ongoing scientific discovery

and innovation.

2 European Data Portal. Creating Value through Open Data. P.48. https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_creating_value_through_open_data_0.pdf

3 Vickery, Graham (2011). “Review of recent studies on PSI re-use and related market developments.” European Commission. Available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/review-recent-studies-psi-reuse-and-related-market-developments

The economic return on investment in

increased access to public data averages

39X in the US

5

4 Open Data Institute. The economic impact of open data: what do we already know? https://medium.com/@ODIHQ/the-economic-impact-of-open-data-what-do-we-already-know-1a119c1958a0 5 PPIC, Paying for Water in California, Technical Appendix B: Estimates of Water Sector Expenditures, Revenues, and Needs. P.11 and

https://www.epa.gov/cwns/clean-watersheds-needs-survey-cwns-2012-report-and-data

6 PPIC, Paying for Water in California, Technical Appendix B: Estimates of Water Sector Expenditures, Revenues, and Needs. P.11 and

https://www.epa.gov/cwns/clean-watersheds-needs-survey-cwns-2012-report-and-data

Box 1. Illustrative returns on investment for water data

infrastructure

Water management: Generate significant cost savings. California could see $160M –

780M of economic benefit in the water management sector alone. Water management accounts

for about 1% of California’s economy, or $40B – $60B annually. Conservative estimates place the

direct economic value of open access to public sector data at 0.4 – 1.3% through improvements

in efficiency, decision-making, and infrastructure investments.4

Resilient infrastructure: Safeguard the largest capital investments. California faces an

anticipated $73 billion dollars in water infrastructure investments over the next 20 years.5

Improved access to public water data will optimize these investments. Given the size of the

projects, even marginal improvements in infrastructure siting and design would generate massive

benefits.

Environmental flows: Better protect water-dependent ecosystems. California spends

nearly $700 million each year to manage aquatic ecosystems important for birds, fish, and

amphibians and for agriculture and people.6 Improved water data will enable better,

proactive decision-making around these critical systems.

Water markets: Create flexibility to manage extremes. California still lacks a robust and

transparent water market. In large part, this is because the state can’t track in real time

how and where water is used and where it is needed. Open data will address this

challenge by creating the transparency needed for California to weather the next drought or

flood.

6

1.2 A Federated, Use-Case Driven Platform Is Needed

The government of California has adopted a powerful vision for the implementation

of AB 1755 as a federated, use-case driven platform. This vision is built on two core

ideas: (1) a federated system; that is (2) use-case driven (Figure 1).

What does this mean for water data governance?

Governance is the set of systems and processes to coordinate action and decision-

making about the structure, content, use, and financing of the water data platform.

Adopting a federated, use-case driven system, leads California to a governance

structure that realizes the following principles:

1. Governance is neutral, but prioritized

To realize its vision of creating an objective, transparent foundation to

understand California’s water system, governance of the platform should be

independent from any particular, private or special interest. At the same time,

the data platform cannot prioritize all data and uses, so must transparently

establish priorities.

Figure 1

Benefits of a federated, use-case driven Platform The vision for AB

1755 is for a water data platform – an

interlinked set of tools and resources

that provide access to data for water

decision-making – referred to in this document as “the

Platform”

Federated A data platform that connects multiple, independent databases through common standards and conventions. It reduces costs by limiting data management overhead relative to establishing a single database. It is more effective because it builds trust by allowing data producers to retain control over their data.

Use-case driven A data platform that prioritizes and manages data in response to how those data will be used. It reduces costs by building data systems around high priority uses. It is more effective because the data system is designed to be useful to those who rely on it to make decisions.

This produces a more effective, less expensive system

and

7

2. Governance engages public and private stakeholders

Given the number of stakeholders involved in federated water data

governance – including state agencies, Federal agencies, tribes, NGOs and

academics, the private sector, and philanthropy – effective and efficient

strategies to engage and respond to various stakeholder groups is vital.

3. Governance fosters accountability

Accountability facilitates collaboration and trust. It aligns interests of

stakeholders behind shared goals and objectives. It builds confidence in

outside funders and participants, and supports continuous improvement

towards better meeting the needs of Platform users.

1.3 A Consortium Engages Stakeholders and Builds

Trust

We recommend that the California state government consider developing both an

internal process to facilitate inter-agency coordination and alignment through a “state

governing group,” as well as a Consortium to house and oversee Platform

governance. The Consortium would function as an independent, non-profit entity,

such as a 501(c)(3), a

public benefit corporation,

or a joint powers authority.

The independence of a

Consortium would

enhance fundraising from

non-state partners, while

also increasing the

nimbleness of Platform

governance. By ensuring a

majority state

representation in its

leadership (i.e., the Steering

Committee), the Consortium would maintain strong links to California state

government.

The Consortium would be an independent, not-for profit entity that sits alongside,

and coordinates with state government through a “state governing group.” This state

governing group would oversee the internal coordination for implementation. The

Consortium, however, would manage the major governance functions associated with

the Platform, i.e. management of the Steering Committee, the Technical Working

Group(s), the Use-case Working Groups, and administrative staff. (For additional

details, see Table 1, and section 2.3.)

Figure 2

Proposed governance structure for AB 1755

Where have you seen this structure before?

The Internet.

The Internet Engineering

Task Force (IETF) is a large

international community

whose mission is simply to

help the Internet work better.

Much like the proposed

Water Data Consortium, the

IETF is governed by a

steering group and includes

technical working groups and

use-case working groups.

8

This structure would maintain the authority and responsibility of the state

government over its data, but facilitate active external participation in Platform

governance. As a non-state, and non-regulatory entity to govern the Platform, the

Consortium will also help foster trust among data providers who could share data

while retaining a level of control.

As described in greater detail in section 2.4, we propose that the state government

would have a significant representation in the Consortium to ensure tight

collaboration, and smooth translation of consortium recommendations into

implementation.

Table 1. Overview of governance groups

1.4 Sustainable Platform Funding Is Achievable

AB 1755 assembles, transforms, and organizes an essential element of California’s

water infrastructure – its data. While the costs of data infrastructure are but a fraction

of physical infrastructure, it does require stable, ongoing funding from the state and

others to be successful. We grounded the recommendations around sustainable

funding in the following principles:

The following principles guide a funding structure for AB 1755

1. A portfolio approach promotes long-term sustainability of funding.

Under a portfolio approach, the state would deliberately structure funding for

AB 1755 implementation to draw on multiple sources, and reduce dependency

Entity Role

State Governing Group

Ensures state standards and Platform standards are aligned, and coordinates: water data publication, IT procurement, use-case implementation, and agency budgets

Steering committee

Provides strategic direction for the Platform, sets priorities, communicates priorities and recommendations to state working group, and manages the administrative staff and external funding

Use-case working groups

Articulates users’ needs and priorities; supports communication of those needs to the technical working group and data providers

Technical working group(s)

Identifies, develops, and recommends the functional and technical requirements (standards and protocols) for the Platform and supports awareness and adoption of standards by data providers

Administrative staff

Facilitates and supports the successful implementation of Consortium meetings and priorities

Just as the costs of roads are shared

among local, state, and federal governments and private entities, data infrastructure

costs must be shared as well

9

on any one. Funding sources could include a range of state-based funding

mechanisms, as well as local, federal, private, and philanthropic funding.

2. The state remains a majority stakeholder in governance and in funding.

This ensures that the Platform is supportive of state priorities and that

Consortium decisions and recommendations can be effectively implemented by

the state. For the California state government to retain this role in Platform

governance, however, it must commit to providing meaningful, ongoing

financial support as well.

3. Clear accountability for outcomes encourages participation of non-state

partners. Participation is in the form of engagement in the governance, data

production and use, and development of the Platform, as well as funding

support for the Platform. Timelines to achieve outcomes (i.e., “early wins”) will

be an important part of accountability as it will build the confidence of funders

and participants that their investments will result in a stronger connection

between data and decision-making.

Sharing the costs of data infrastructure

The physical infrastructure of roads offers a useful analogy for thinking about the

structure of funding for data infrastructure. The national highway system provides

essential interconnections across the country. State highways connect to that system,

and local governments pave the last miles to connect towns and cities to the state and

the country. Private entities who own and manage roads do so under regulation to

ensure that they mesh with this system and are managed for public good. Just as the

costs of roads are shared among local, state, and federal governments and private

entities, data infrastructure costs must be shared as well.

To realize the promise of AB 1755, the state government will need to maintain

sufficient ongoing funding for data collection, publication, and analytics. The state

currently makes a significant investment in collecting, maintaining, and analyzing

water data. These investments are made through agency budgets, and through grants

to local governments. The success of AB1755 will rely on government maintaining

this core funding and potentially make modest ongoing increases in coming years to

fund the one-time costs of transformation and accelerate the pace of quality control

and publication. Under the proposed governance structure, agencies and programs

would retain authority and responsibility for setting and managing their data budgets.

AB 1755 introduces costs above and beyond these standing budgets. These costs

could be shared between the state of California and external funding, through the

Consortium (see table 2 for an overview of the streams of funding to support AB

1755, and coordination of these funding sources under the proposed governance

structure). For example, during the transition there will be a need for investment in:

• Inter-departmental needs assessments to identify what data sets are available,

and where there may be duplications in data collection that could be

streamlined;

10

• Development of priority use-cases

• Data transformation and curation costs to prepare existing data for open

publication on the new Platform;

• Standards and protocol development to enable interoperability on the

Platform;

• Support for increased coordination among state entities and with the external

stakeholders, including efforts to develop publication notes, and support

wider federation of the platform

Once up and running, the Consortium will help support Platform costs above and

beyond data collection and maintenance. These costs would include the

administration of the Consortium, meeting coordination for the governance groups,

and possibly a technical team that could support the state as well as local data

providers as they transition to and implement the new system.

Table 2. Management of funding streams to implement AB 1755

Funding

source

Use of funds State role Consortium role

Agencies’

existing

budgets

Ongoing state

agency activities

including data

collection,

management,

and publication.

State agencies would

continue to manage these

resources with no change

under the proposed

consortium structure.

State may provide grants to

the Consortium.

The state would provide

the Consortium

transparency into their

water data budgets to

support alignment with

Consortium resources.

Annual

allocation for

AB 1755-

specific

funding

Support

extraordinary

costs associated

with the

transition to the

new data

Platform,

State agencies would

continue to manage these

resources with no change

under the proposed

consortium structure.

State may provide grants to

the Consortium.

The state would provide

the Consortium

transparency into their

water data budgets to

support alignment with

Consortium resources.

State Water

Data

Administrati

on (WDA)

Fund

Granted to the

Consortium to

support

implementation

priorities

Grant funds to the

Consortium. Collaborate

through the Consortium to

set implementation

priorities.

Receive grants from the

state. Manage state grant

dollars in alignment with

set priorities for AB

1755 implementation.

Consortium

Fund

Consortium

activities

The state would have

visibility into the use of

Consortium funds to

facilitate alignment with

state priorities.

Development budget,

oversee use of the

Consortium Fund.

11

2. Platform Governance The success of AB 1755 depends on the cooperation, coordination, and buy-in of

stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Successful coordination of these

stakeholders will rely on strong governance. Governance here refers to the systems

and processes put into place to coordinate action and decision-making about the

structure, content, and use of the Platform. These structures may be formal, such as

standing working groups, or they may be informal, such as opportunities to share and

exchange best practices and approaches. Regardless, governance supports the

ongoing functioning and evolution of the Platform for user needs with the ultimate

goal of assuring that data is accessible and useful to water management decision-

making.

2.1 Applying the federated platform vision to

governance

AB 1755 aims to support long-term, open access to data for water decision-making in

California, and encourages collaborative governance of data to support that access.

The strategic planning process has produced a powerful vision of a federated, use-

case oriented Platform to implement the bill. This report builds on that vision in

developing governance recommendations.

Federated, use-case oriented structure

By a federated system, we mean that data access is secured through an agreed-upon set

of exchange standards and protocols among independently managed databases, rather

than through data collected into a single database/warehouse. Library systems

provide a helpful analogy to understand federated data systems. Individual data

providers maintain their own open databases and can be likened to individual libraries

within a system. Just as libraries can network to allow for borrowing of books across

the system through interlibrary loan, databases in the Platform can be federated to

allow access to data in multiple databases. Users of any individual library may pull and

request a book through the library system without needing books to be warehoused

in a central library. Similarly, users of the federated Platform can request and use data

without requiring that data to be housed in a single database/warehouse.7

A federated system has the benefit of allowing data providers to retain control of and

responsibility for their data sets. In California, a federated system is particularly

advantageous given the distributed nature of local, federal, and state institutions and

their data for water decision-making, and the need for interoperability across these

7 The state develops this helpful analogy in their progress report: https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/AB-1755/AB1755ProgressReportinitialdraft13018v42.pdf?la=en&hash=0B9CB4C2BE515DDEBFCCFF1D9D436FD4707ED438&hash=0B9CB4C2BE515DDEBFCCFF1D9D436FD4707ED438

Governance here refers to the systems

and processes put into place to

coordinate action and decision-making

about the structure, content, and use of

the Platform

The vision for AB 1755 is for a water data

platform – an interlinked set of

tools and resources that provide access to

data for water decision-making – referred to in this document as “the

Platform”

12

independent entities. Federation also builds trust in the network among data

providers as they can retain control over the quality of and access to their data. At the

same time, this distributive nature can be challenging because of the sheer number of

organizations and institutions that can become involved in the network.

By a use-case driven platform, we mean one in which data are put onto the network and

organized in response to the ways in which the data will be used (e.g., for making

specific decisions, answering specific research questions, education, innovation, etc.).

Under a use-case approach, data publication is informed by the needs of specific

users, and success of the system is measured by the system’s ability to meet and

respond to user needs. Similarly, data quality standards, meta-data documentation

requirements, prioritization of data for publication, and levels of interoperability are

all indexed to the needs of users. When data are used across multiple use-cases, data

standards and protocols ensure interoperability. A use-case orientation also

emphasizes the need for iterative feedback among data users, data providers, and

system developers to ensure that the Platform is functional and useful.

2.2 Scope of AB 1755 governance

Data management covers a vast array of activities. The state government has adopted

a data life cycle approach to guide governance (Figure 1). The life cycle approach

helps to distinguish the complementary roles of actors within this overall ecosystem,

and to focus AB 1755 governance on those areas where state-led coordination will

have the greatest impact on driving a more open and transparent water data system in

California.

AB 1755 focuses explicitly on the data publication phase, with implications across the

full data life cycle. This focus is emphasized by the enabling legislation, which

mandates that information be made “accessible, discoverable, and usable” by the

public.8 Accessibility, discoverability, and usability are all fundamentally determined

through the publication process. As Figure 3 highlights, a focus on publication has

significant implications for other phases of the data life cycle, including metadata

documentation, data archiving, and what data are prioritized for publication. In

addition, it promotes planning for data needs, and the extraction of information; and

supports making data-driven decisions, collecting data, and assuring data quality.

This emphasis on data publication highlights a core set of questions for AB 1755

governance. These questions relate to the priorities, standards, and protocols involved

in data publication, including:

• What data should be prioritized for publication?

• How should data be formatted for publication?

• What meta-data documentation is required?

8 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1755

13

• What are the data quality expectations?

• What are the high-level protocols and standards around data publication?

• How is participation in the Platform and adoption of the protocols and

standards encouraged?

• How does the system build capacity across entities to publish data?

A focus on publication also identifies questions that are not in the initial scope of AB

1755 governance, but would remain in the purview of other participating entities (e.g.,

individual participating state entities, federal agencies, data providers, data analysis

companies). For example, questions associated with data collection – such as which

data are collected, with what frequency, and according to what standards – would

remain in the remit of the entities collecting the data or setting reporting

requirements. Similarly, state entities that are publishing the data would retain

responsibility for ensuring quality standards and upholding other privacy and security

controls (e.g., removal of personally identifiable information from the data). On the

other hand, questions about data analytics may be addressed by a wide range of data

users and entities, including state and non-state users, from NGOs to private data and

technology companies.

9 https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/AB-1755/AB1755ProgressReportinitialdraft13018v42.pdf

Figure 3

The data life cycle9

Develop

use cases

Plan for

data

needs

Collect

data

Assure

data

quality

Document

metadata

Publish

data

Extract

information

Make

data-

driven

decisions

Archive data

14

2.3 Platform governance involves four functions

AB 1755 establishes a mandate for collaborative governance of the Platform across

state entities. The choice of a federated system reflects and further ingrains this

collaborative approach. In a federated system, governance structures serve as a

coordinating mechanism for distributed parties participating in the Platform.

Governance also helps establish a division of responsibility across these entities and

endorses an agreed-upon set of processes and procedures for the collaborative to

make shared decisions. At the same time, such governance has limited ability to

enforce participation on the Platform or adoption of its priorities. Participating state,

federal, and non-state entities must be the ones to adopt these standards and

recommendations, making governance, ultimately, a party of the willing.

Four functions are recommended for the governance of AB 1755: a steering

committee, use-case working groups, technical working group, and a standing

administrative staff (see table 3 for an overview). This brief section describes and

offers preliminary thoughts about specific responsibilities for each of these functions

and who could be involved in each. The description of these entities endorses and

builds on the governance functions and schematic described in the progress report

released in January .10

Table 3. Summary of governance functions for the Platform

Entity Role Core responsibilities

Steering

Committee

Provides strategic

direction for the Platform

and a forum for shared-

decision-making among

entities and leverages

external funding

1) Coordinate the strategic direction for the Platform

2) Coordinate with state governing group

3) Solicit, coordinate, and manage external resources for Platform activities

4) Set standards, conventions, and protocols

5) Oversee the administrative staff

Use-case

working

groups

Coordinates use-case

implementation on the

Platform

1) Consult and engage around user priorities

2) Consult on technical and functional requirements for use-case implementation with technical working group

Technical

working

group(s)

Identifies, develops, and

recommends the

functional and technical

requirements for the

Platform

1) Identify, develop, and recommend functional and technical requirements for the Platform

2) Proactively engage with use-case working groups to support implementation

3) Ensure interoperability and usability across the Platform

4) Train data providers and support awareness and adoption of standards, protocols, and conventions by data provider community

Administrative

staff

Facilitates and supports

the successful

implementation of

Consortium meetings and

priorities

1) Arrange Consortium meetings

2) Support activities of the Steering Committee, as well as technical and use-case working groups

3) Communicate Steering Committee reports and findings

10 https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/AB-1755/AB1755ProgressReportinitialdraft13018v42.pdf

15

Steering Committee

Responsibilities

This group would serve as the executive committee for the Platform. Responsibilities

would include:

• Coordinate the strategic direction for the Platform, which may include the

management and curation of use-cases and the development of functional

capacities on the network. As a federated system of independent entities, the

strategic direction involves improving communications for coordination of

decision-making, rather than setting a prescriptive direction for the entities. As

such, the Steering Committee may choose to coordinate action across distinct

subgroups for particular activities, seeking agreement and coordination across

the entire Platform whenever possible.

• Coordinate with the state governing group. The Steering committee will

have the responsibility for coordinating actions and decisions with the state

governing group. For the most part, this goal will be accomplished by

representation of that group on the Steering Committee and other

Consortium committees.

• Set standards, conventions, and protocols to ensure interoperability.

The Steering Committee would have the authority to adopt standards,

conventions, and protocols for the network, and to encourage use of open-

source code. In taking these actions, the Steering Committee will be advised

by the technical working groups, which will be responsible for the due

diligence, consultation, and deliberation required to arrive at expert judgment

about best practices for the network. (We address what kinds of decisions

could fall within this category below, under the section on “technical working

groups.”)

• Coordinate and manage resources to support Platform activities. The

Steering Committee will provide a forum to coordinate budget priorities and

requests across participating entities. In particular, the Committee will create

opportunities to share and align budget priorities, identify gaps, and cultivate

opportunities to align and coordinate funding. The Committee will also work

with funding agencies, both public and private, to secure the necessary

resources for the participating entities.

In addition, we anticipate that the Platform will have some level of dedicated

funding to carry out governance and supporting activities. The Steering

Committee will be responsible for setting a budget for these activities and

overseeing expenses in-line with the budget. The third chapter of this report

addresses sustainable funding models for the Platform. In that section, we

discuss what items may be covered by the Platform budget, as opposed to

program and agency budgets.

16

• Oversee the administrative staff. The Steering Committee would oversee

the administrative staff, which provides dedicated support to the Platform.

The administrative staff is described in greater detail below.

Membership

The Steering Committee could be composed of state and non-state partners, with

individual representatives serving on a rotating basis. An illustrative composition of

the committee would be balanced across participating groups, including seats for the

California state government, seats for Federal, local, and tribal governments, and seats

for NGOs, academic institutions, and for-profit companies.

• State entities, including the named entities in the AB 1755 legislation, could

have standing seats in the Steering Committee. These entities include:

Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board,

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Water Quality

Monitoring Council. The state should also invite other entities engaged in the

open data effort, such as California Natural Resources Agency, GovOps,

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Environmental

Protection Agency (CalEPA), legislative leaders, and California Council on

Science and Technology (CCST).

• Federal, local, and tribal government entities. Federal entities could

include experts for example from USGS, U.S Bureau of Reclamation, US

EPA, or the National Water Center. Local government entities could include

municipal water districts or public utilities. Tribal government entities could

include Tribal governments reporting and using both federal and state data for

water decision-making.

• NGOs contributing data to and using data on the platform.

• Academic institutions, both public and private, could participate on the

Steering Committee as technical experts (e.g., on data science, hydrology,

biology, etc.), and users of the platform.

• For-profit entities contributing data to and using data on the platform may

participate to represent the expertise as well as the interests of the private

sector in innovating with public data. Participation of for-profit entities would

need to be limited and balanced with other interests and perspectives to

ensure that the Consortium does not get “captured” by any narrow private

interest. One way to mitigate this risk is to engage trusted for-profit partners

who embrace an open-source, civically-minded approach to their work, such

as Splunk, Xyegy, and Civic Actions.

Adopting a rotating membership may help the Steering Committee limit the risk that

Platform governance is dominated by any particular, narrow, set of interests, and may

promote a high-level of engagement by Committee members while seated. That said,

founding Consortium members will ultimately need to define rules of participation

that balance these concerns of capture and engagement with the value of retaining

institutional knowledge, and high-quality, committed members.

17

Use-case working group

Use-case working groups are a vital coordination, communication, and engagement

mechanism for the Platform. They would help guide Platform development in user

priorities by supporting iterative feedback on the Platform on goals as defined

through specific use-cases.

As the Platform develops and matures, use-case working groups will likely be

identified by the Steering Committee as Platform priorities. Grassroots use-case

working groups may also emerge among user groups to address shared interests.

Below, we only address the potential role of formal use-case working groups

prioritized by the Steering Committee.

Responsibilities

• Consult on technical and functional requirements for use-case

implementation. The use-case working groups would collaborate with the

technical working group(s) to develop recommendations around the

functional requirements, standards, protocols, and conventions for a use-case.

• Coordinate use-case implementation by engaging user groups and working

with them to define user needs and objectives around priority use-cases, and

then coordinating publication of the relevant data across the community.

• Consult and engage around user-priorities: The use-case working groups

would be the primary mechanism for the Platform to listen to and understand

how users would like to engage and leverage the Platform, and to identify

improvements that will increase its impact over time.

Membership

Membership on the use-case working groups would be voluntary and reflect those

agencies and data users most affected by the specific use-case at hand. Unlike the

Technical Working group, the influence of the use-case working groups emerges

from its reach and relevance to the user community. As a result, participation would

be open to all those who are engaged and interested in participating.

Technical working group

Responsibilities

The technical working group(s) would:

• Identify, develop, and recommend the functional and technical

requirements for the Platform, including but not limited to, guidelines on data

standards, data publication approaches, and data vocabulary. Given the

number of autonomous entities involved in the federated Platform, these

standards would ideally be minimal to ensure interoperability and

performance, while not being overly prescriptive of data management at

participating agencies and entities.

18

• Proactively engage with data providers to support them in adoption of

new standards and protocols.

• Proactively engage with the use-case working groups to support

development and implementation of the use-cases, and to promote consistent

implementation of broader Platform guidelines.

• Facilitate regional and national coordination around standards setting.

Multiple state, regional, and national entities are developing standards for data

used in water decision-making. The technical working group can help

coordinate with those entities, building on existing standards when possible,

and engaging in the collaborative development of standards where needed.

The technical working group(s) would support two broad categories of data:

• High-use core data: In their review of water-data use patterns, the use-case

working group found that a limited number of data sets were used across

multiple use-cases.11 For these high-use, core data, the technical working

group effort would aim to ensure interoperability of the data sets across use-

cases.

• Use-case specific data sets: Other data are used in focused use-cases. In

these instances, the technical working group would advise on the standards,

conventions, and protocols that could support the use-case, as well as on the

wider utility of the data on the Platform.

Membership

Technical working group(s) could include qualified representatives from each of the

participating state agencies, representatives from Federal and Tribal agencies whose

data are integrated into the Platform, and external data science experts from

academia, NGOs, and the private sector. It would ideally be managed by a Chief Data

Officer, who is a full-time staff of the Consortium (see section below on

“Administrative Staff”). The influence and authority of the Technical Working Group

emerges from their expertise. As a result, the Consortium may want to consider an

application process to vet and qualify participants and ensure the highest technical

standards across the platform.

Administrative staff

Administrative staff could facilitate and support the implementation of Platform

activities. The administrative staff would be a standing team of professional staff. The

staffing could include an Executive Officer, as well as focused support for technical

and use-case working groups. The Consortium may also consider developing a Chief

Data Officer or scientist to help quickly address technical issues that may arise and,

just as important, to give confidence that the Consortium is focused on promoting

the best science rather than interest-specific viewpoints. Administrative staff would

11 Cite the Kiparski paper, and identify other places where we need to cite this piece

19

be full-time to ensure commitment and focus to carrying out governance needs for

the Platform. The administrative staff would be funded by the Consortium and

managed by the Steering Committee.

2.4 Institutionalizing data governance

To implement the Platform, these governance functions must be institutionalized into

a structure that can support their ongoing function. This section considers options

for that structure, and recommends that the California state government consider

developing both an internal process to facilitate inter-agency coordination and

alignment, as well as a consortium to house and oversee Platform governance. The

Consortium would function as an independent, non-profit entity, such as a 501(c)(3),

a public benefit corporation, or a joint powers authority. The independence of the

Consortium would enhance fundraising from non-state partners, while also increasing

the nimbleness of Platform governance. By ensuring a majority state representation in

its leadership (i.e., the Steering Committee), the Consortium would maintain strong

links to California state government.

Core principles for institutionalizing data governance

AB 1755 sets an especially high bar for collaboration by requiring coordination

among state entities and between the state, local, federal, and tribal government,

along with private entities to gather, maintain, and use data and to secure start-up and

ongoing funding to manage the Platform. The choice of the institutional structure for

AB 1755 governance will affect how well California meets this ambitious mandate.

Discussions with the Partner Agency Team, guiding principles from the AB 1755

Progress Report, and lessons from past data integration efforts in California

collectively suggest that the institutional structure for AB 1755 governance should:

• Affirm the vital role of California state government in the collection,

maintenance, and publication of data for water decision-making and of

tools to assist analysis. The state government has a regulatory role in the

oversight of California water, and so in the management of this regulatory

data. The California state government also has a vital role in providing a

foundation of shared facts and information to guide water planning and

management across the state.

• Align management of data for water decision-making across state

entities to advance the interoperability of California and federal water data,

and support the implementation of priority use-cases.

• Encourage collaboration with non-state data collectors and users. Non-

state participation is important to the success of AB 1755. Non-state actors

will contribute vital data and realize value from the data by using it to make

decisions and to drive innovation. Governance can encourage this open and

active participation by minimizing barriers and providing clear benefits.

• Promote a sustainable portfolio of funding, including a healthy mix of

state and external funding. AB 1755 will benefit California, local and tribal

20

governments, private businesses, and non-profit actors. Each of these

participants has a role in contributing to sustainable Platform governance and

funding. Diversifying the funding sources will also reduce dependence on any

one source, and promote long-term sustainability of the Platform.

• Prevent the dominance of any one interest group. While AB 1755 offers

benefits to all stakeholders, it also creates risk that any one stakeholder group

could dominate decision-making to, for instance, prioritize certain types of

use-cases over all others. Likewise, tying governance (or associated funding) to

any specific state administration’s priorities risks making the Platform

vulnerable when the administration changes.

• Foster trust in data sharing among stakeholders. Culturally, there is

significant distrust in sharing water data. The culture of utilities and water

managers to “stay below the radar” as well as negative past experiences in

sharing data contribute to this environment. To be successful, Platform

governance must build the trust of stakeholders so that they can share data on

the Platform without harm and build their appreciation of how they can

benefit from sharing their data. Accordingly, it is vital to consider how the

governance structure put into place will be perceived by the stakeholders, and

whether and how the governance group can establish itself as a neutral broker.

A state process to manage data for water decision-making

AB 1755 requires a significant increase in coordination among state entities involved

in data collection, management, and publication. Some kind of process will be needed

to support this coordination. The process could be run through existing structures,

such as the California Water Quality Monitoring Council; the state could create a new

entity (e.g. a Council or Commission); or could utilize an informal coordinating body

may to support coordination. The final decision as to the form would need to be

made by inter-agency agreement based on internal protocols and relationships. For

the purposes of this report, however, we will refer to the entity as “the state

governing group.”

The primary objective of the state governing group would be to align water and

ecosystem data management activities across state entities. Specifically, the state

governing group would align California state government data standards and

publication protocols across agencies, ensure those protocols and standards are

aligned with Platform standards to the extent possible, coordinate water data and IT

procurement processes, and coordinate use-case implementation. To do so, it may

develop a data sharing framework to facilitate data exchange.12 By providing an

internal governance structure for California data, it also affirms the independence of

the state in the collection, maintenance, and publication of data for water decision-

making.

12 See the CA Data Network; the Great Lakes Commission; the Delaware River Commission for examples of data sharing frameworks

21

Importantly, private industry, academic, NGO, and Federal, tribal, and local

government representatives may each also coordinate with their own constituencies

and partners, serving an analogous role to the state governing group within their own

institutions and sectors.

A state governing group is insufficient on its own

The state governing group by itself, however, is likely insufficient as a mechanism to

engage outside partners, either as participants on the Platform, or as funders of the

Platform. As such, the complementary roles of a State Governing Group and a water

data consortium are proposed.

• For participation, other government entities, most notably the Federal and

Tribal governments, as well as other states, could not formally participate in a

state governing group, although they may be able to participate on an informal

basis. Private interests, meanwhile, may be hesitant to participate in the

Platform if its governance and management is perceived as cumbersome or

insufficiently responsive to their interests.

• For fundraising, our interviews and experience with philanthropic organizations

suggest that it is difficult to fundraise private philanthropy or charitable

contributions for a state-based entity. Contributions for state-based entities

raise questions of accountability for the funding, as well as additionality – is

this something that outside dollars are really needed for?

While the Open and Transparent Water Data Act did establish a segregated

Water Data Administration Fund that can accept donations as part of AB

1755 implementation, outsiders will likely need greater transparency and

accountability around the use of capital contributed to the fund, than can be

accommodated within the existing state structure.

Table 4 summarizes how the state governing group would meet the broader

objectives of governance for the Platform, and highlights the complementary role of

an independent Water Data Consortium, which we will consider in the next section.

As illustrated, the state governing group could play a vital role in securing and

affirming California state government participation in Platform governance, whereas

an independent Consortium would play a complementary role in engaging outside

partners, either as participants, or as funders.

Table 4. Alignment between principles and governance components

Affirm the

state’s role

for official

data

Align

activities

across state

entities

Encourage

collaboration

with non-

state actors

Promote a

sustainable

portfolio of

funding

Prevent the

dominance

of interest

groups

Build trust

among

stakeholders

State group Higher Higher Lower Lower Lower Lower

Consortium Lower Lower Higher Higher Higher Higher

22

A water data Consortium

Completing Platform governance with a not-for-profit consortium (“The

Consortium”) would offer significant benefits to California state government and to

the wider water data community. The Consortium would sit alongside California state

government, and could be created as a new entity, or could be housed within an

existing non-profit (Figure 4). One option to consider is whether the Consortium

could sit within an

academic institution or an

existing NGO focused on

water data, which could

both ease integration with

state government and

build trust among non-

state partners, since those

entities are often

accustomed to partnering

with academic institutions

and other NGOs. The

Consortium would help

build the trust of private and non-state entities since it is not a regulatory entity, and

would give the users a clear voice and decision-making power in the governance of

the Platform.

Membership in the Consortium would include representation from the state of

California, local, Federal, and tribal governments, as well as non-governmental

representation. State representation could include all participating state entities, and

possibly legislative leadership as well. Non-government actors could include data

providers, managers, and users from academics; private industry actors; and NGOs.

California state government has used this model before to facilitate public-private

partnerships for data sharing (e.g., the Open Geospatial Consortium, see sidebar on

page 33), and should consider this approach for AB 1755 as well.

The Consortium would host all four governance functions outlined above, but would

not be responsible for coordination across state entities (table 5). It would house and

manage the administrative staff, the Steering Committee, and focus its expertise in the

Use-Case Working Groups and Technical Working Group(s). The Consortium could

also house a team of on-call data engineers and scientists to provide project-based

expert support for use-case implementation by state agencies and other partners (see

sidebar on page 23).

As the Consortium and the Platform mature, Consortium members may choose to

include data on the Platform that reaches beyond data covered by AB 1755 (e.g.

currently non-public data, academic data). The Consortium could encourage such

collaboration by, for instance, developing or adapting data sharing frameworks used

by similar consortia.

Figure 4

Proposed governance structure for AB 1755

23

The Consortium would complement work of the state governing group by creating a

structure that can more easily engage outside partners. To ensure that the two entities

are coordinated, representatives from the state of California, including the state

governing group could have a significant proportion of the seats on the Steering

Committee, as well as significant participation in the Use-Case and Technical

Working Groups.

This model would have important benefits over a state-only structure including:

• Increased fundraising capacity. The Consortium would be better

positioned to raise money from non-state partners. This could include

contributions from private and corporate philanthropy, as well as the

development of membership fees going forward.

• More flexible and nimble engagement with non-state partners,

including local and Federal government, tribal governments, academic

partners, NGOs, and business entities.

• More flexible procurement and staffing processes.

Table 4 (above) summarizes how the Consortium would meet the broader objectives

of governance for the Platform. As illustrated, the Consortium would encourage a

more sustainable funding model by facilitating contributions from non-state partners.

Table 5 summarizes how the State Governing Group and Consortium would work

collectively, and the possible membership and roles for each.

SIDEBAR

Human resources for digital water data products and services

AB 1755 puts a substantial burden on Agencies’ data scientists and experts who will be tasked with transforming and managing their data and processes. A centralized team that could work across Agencies would offer great efficiencies and enable current staff to maintain their current foci.

Fortunately, a precedent exists. 18F is an office within the Federal General Services Administration that collaborates with other agencies to fix technical problems, build products, and improve how government serves the public through technology. Likewise, the U.S. Digital Service is a part of the Executive Office of the President that provides consultation services to Federal Agencies on information technology and seeks to improve and simplify Federal digital service. The state could create a similar team for AB 1755 – a Center of Excellence for Water Data, for instance – to play similar roles. It would be managed by the Steering Committee and the administrative staff and be deployed as needed to assist with data management and integration with the state governing group, and on specific projects and analyses with the Consortium.

The state of California already recognizes the need to increase its analytic capacities and is making efforts to do so. A Center of Excellence for Water Data team could assist in this development to enable state and not-for-profit actors, in particular, to make best use of the data, especially when engaging private companies with significant data science expertise and resources.

24

Table 5: Summary of governance groups

Participation Roles Funding

concepts

State

Governing

Group

Defined by the state partners

• Participation should ensure the following:

o Representatives have necessary authority to implement

o Coordination with other statewide data efforts

o Integration with on-going data collection and publication

• Align and set state data standards across Agencies

• Coordinate data publication protocols across Agencies for data covered by AB 1755

• Ensure that state protocols and standards are aligned with Platform standards

• Coordinate data and IT procurement processes for AB 1755 implementation

• Coordinate use-case implementation

• Coordinate agency budgets

• Funding from participating Agencies

• Existing agency data management budget

• Consortium may grant dollars back to state to support implementation priorities

California

Water Data

Consortium

Steering Committee

• Chair is a member of state government

• State entities; term-limited to two-years, and selected by State Governing Group

• Other stakeholders (e.g. Federal, Tribal and local, academic reps, NGOs, private sector)

• Funding allocations require simple majority or 2/3 majority

• Coordinate the strategic direction for the Platform, including use-case management and curation

• Coordinate with the state governing group

• Solicit, coordinate and manage resources for Platform

• Oversee administrative staff

• Discuss the uses of different sources of funds for implementation of the Platform across the state and Consortium

• Allocate funds for implementation from Consortium Fund

• State contribution

• Federal grants

• Foundation Support

• Private charitable contributions

• Membership fees

Use-case working groups Determined by use-cases

• Consult and engage around user priorities

• Consult on technical and functional requirements for use-case implementation with technical working group

Technical working group

• State water managers

• NGOs

• Academics

• Federal and regional water data experts

• Tribal data experts

• Data scientists

• Identify, develop, and recommend functional and technical requirements

• Proactively engage with data provider community

• Proactively engage with use-case working groups to support implementation

• Ensure interoperability and usability across the Platform

Administrative staff

• Arrange Consortium meetings

• Support activities of the Steering Committee, technical and use-case working groups

• Communication of reports

25

Are two processes really needed?

The proposed governance structure has a level of complexity to it. It includes the

development of two processes: A state governing group, and a non-state NGO in the

form of the Consortium. Is this complexity necessary? Our strong sense is that it is,

but below we consider the trade-offs involved in simplifying the structure to either

one of the options.

The complexity of the structure comes from the recognition that there are two

distinct, but equally important layers of coordination necessary to make the proposed

Platform function: coordination among state entities, and coordination between the

state and non-state entities.

The state of California needs to coordinate data management and publication

protocols across the many agencies, departments, and programs involved in

management of data covered by AB 1755. This coordination process brings with it an

important set of considerations, including regulatory and statutory requirements

around the data and compliance, as well as the distinct challenges associated with data

management in a state government. These additional considerations are likely too

cumbersome to manage within the context of a wider coordination effort, and could

discourage engagement by outside partners, particularly around funding for the

Platform.

Given this context, a state Council may be sufficient for Platform governance if:

• California state government can commit to fund the Platform at a sustainable

level long-term without the addition of external funding from philanthropy,

private industry, or membership fees

• Informal coordination with Federal partners is sufficient

• Local partners, academia, and NGOs are motivated enough to engage with a

more cumbersome structure to be involved in the Platform

The development of the Consortium is designed to address these challenges by

creating a structure that is more flexible, and so more amenable, to collaboration with

outside partners. A non-profit structure may also facilitate the accountability and

transparency needed to build the confidence of external funders.

Given this context, a Consortium may be a sufficient for Platform governance if:

• The state of California can effectively address its internal data management

and governance issues in the context of a larger organization (e.g., as a

working group within the Consortium).

• Regulatory and statutory considerations directing and constraining state data

management can be addressed within a non-state entity.

26

3. Sustainable Platform Funding AB 1755 solidifies an essential element of California’s water infrastructure – its data.

While the costs of data infrastructure are only a fraction of those for physical

infrastructure, it does require stable, ongoing funding to be successful. Indeed, past

efforts at creating a more open and transparent water data system in California have

not produced the expected results due, in large part, to inadequate funding. These

stalled efforts have also discouraged stakeholders that AB 1755 will be meaningful

and create the data infrastructure that the state dearly needs.

Given these setbacks, it is imperative for California state government to build the

confidence of both state and non-state partners that this time will be different. A

clear and sustainable funding strategy is vital to achieving this goal. Below, we

articulate a budget framework for implementation of AB 1755. The framework builds

on the governance model described in chapter two of this report.

3.1 Funding principles

1. A portfolio approach promotes long-term sustainability of funding.

Under a portfolio approach, the state would deliberately structure funding for

AB 1755 implementation to draw on multiple sources to reduce dependency on

any one. Funding sources could include a diversity of state-based funding

mechanisms, as well as federal, local government funds and private and

philanthropic investment.

2. The state remains a majority stakeholder in governance and in funding.

This ensures that the Platform is supportive of priorities for the state of

California, and that decisions and recommendations reached by the

Consortium can be effectively implemented by the state. For California state

government to retain this role in Platform governance, however, it will need to

provide meaningful, ongoing financial support to it as well.

3. Clear accountability for outcomes encourages participation of non-state

partners. Outcomes are primarily a matter of delivering useful data to users, or

reducing reporting burdens for data producers. By delivering outcomes, the

platform becomes useful, and when it is useful, parties are more willing to

actively support the system – by contributing data, their time, and their money.

Timelines to achieve outcomes (i.e., “early wins”) will be an important part of

accountability as it will build the confidence of funders and participants that

their investments can result in positive change for California.

3.2 Funding needs for AB 1755 implementation

The state will need to maintain a high level of ongoing funding for data collection, analytics, and maintenance

The state of California funds a significant portion of the collection and maintenance

of data used in water decision-making through agency budgets. For AB 1755 to be

27

successful, it is imperative that the state maintain this core funding, and provide

modest increases in coming years to ensure faster, high-quality publication of essential

water data. Additional funds will meaningfully accelerate QA/QC processes on data,

as well as the transformation of existing databases into publication-ready formats.

These two processes are currently the most time-intensive steps in the publication

process, and where additional investment would likely have the greatest impact on

AB 1755 implementation. As these processes become established and more efficient,

agencies may see reduced budget needs in these core data curation activities, freeing

up resources for more data analysis and visualization tools.

Under the proposed governance structure, California state agencies and programs

would retain authority and responsibility for managing their data management

budgets. The state may want to consider adopting an internal process to help state

entities coordinate these budgets to ensure that agency budgets are additive, and

complementary. This coordination might involve activities to provide transparency

into budgets for AB 1755 related expenses. The state governance structure could

provide the forum to discuss coordination. We have also recommended that

California state entities coordinate their budgets with the Water Data Consortium so

that the Consortium could leverage its independent funding to support the shared

mission of implementing AB 1755.

Transition to the new Platform

Additional costs associated with implementation of AB 1755 fall into two broad

categories: (1) costs to transition to the new system of open data publication; and (2)

ongoing costs associated with increased coordination around data publication.

Increased coordination is needed not only across California state entities, but also

between state entities and the wider stakeholder community of water and ecological

data providers, managers, publishers, and users. These costs are above and beyond

the current agency and program data management budgets. As noted above, AB 1755

may also entail an increase in the ongoing data management budgets for state

agencies, but those needs will not be further addressed in this report.

Costs associated with the transition to a new system

1. Interdepartmental assessment of use-cases and associated data needs

Given the breadth of data affected by AB 1755 use-cases, a needs assessment is

required to get a system-wide picture of the state of data across agencies. An

interagency assessment could help identify what data are available, and where there

may be duplications in data collection that could be streamlined. An initial needs

assessment would be tailored to the early use-cases that the Platform takes on (e.g.

water budgets, water balance). As the Platform matures and focuses on additional

use-cases, the assessment may be needed.

2. Data transformation and curation investments enable the Platform

Agencies maintain data in many formats. In many cases, these data must be

transformed to be included in an open platform. This transformation can be time and

28

resource intensive, and is a major rate-limiting step in publishing data in an open

format. In addition, work is needed to get the federated Platform up and running,

such as establishing a state publication node infrastructure.

As the Platform matures, these activities will become part of the ongoing data

management processes within state agencies and programs and hopefully other data

providers. We include it here to draw attention to the need to invest in this process as

state entities shift their data management processes to ensure that priority data sets

are transformed and made available in a timely fashion through the transition process.

It is vital that when the Platform launches, it has sufficient data to support enough

use-cases that users, both within and outside of the state, see its value and continue to

invest in its ongoing development and evolution.

3. Standards and protocol development enable interoperability

The process for developing standards and protocols to enable the Platform is already

underway and will need to continue. The costs associated with their development are

modest but cannot be overlooked. They include staff time to engage in the

development of the standards and protocols; development and implementation of the

testbed network, as well as resources to support meetings and engagement with local,

regional, Federal, Tribal, and academic experts.

4. Coordination costs

The increased coordination envisioned by AB 1755 starts during the transition. These

coordination costs can be broken down into two categories:

• State coordination: In addition to the items identified above, transition to

the new Platform includes the development of the state governing group,

which will coordinate collection and management of California state data

covered by AB 1755. It also includes training for state professionals involved

in water data collection, management, and publication according to the new

open data standards and protocols.

• External stakeholder outreach: External stakeholders are integral to the

success of the Platform. California state government has ongoing outreach

activities with both public and private sector stakeholders interested in

Platform development. Through these interactions, the government is

soliciting input about stakeholder concerns and priorities. In addition, there

will need to be a set of outreach efforts around the formation of a

Consortium. This would include the identification of a leadership group to

guide and shape the formation of the entity, as well as communications and

engagement with the wider water data community around its design,

development, and launch.

The Consortium would support many transition activities

Under the proposed governance structure, the Consortium would ultimately house

the four primary governance functions for water data under the new Platform (i.e.,

Steering Committee, Use-Case Working Group, Technical Working Group, and

29

administrative staff) and, as such, could support many transition activities. In

particular, the Consortium could:

• Support the interagency needs assessment, as well as data transformation and

curation

• Lead and coordinate development of standards and protocols

• Facilitate and expand the reach of external stakeholder outreach

• Lead the continued development of the strategic vision for the Platform

California state agencies would continue to lead the interdepartmental needs

assessment and state coordination around intra-state governance issues. The state

would also provide core funding for data management needed to curate and

transform data sets.

Ongoing operations and management

The Consortium would play a major role in the successful, ongoing functioning of

the Platform. Once mature, it could support most Platform costs above and beyond

data collection and maintenance. Below, we highlight key costs associated with those

activities.

1. Administrative staff

The administrative staff would include a standing, dedicated staff to support

coordination of governance functions for the Platform. Staff would include at least an

Executive Officer, a Chief Data Officer, and administrative support. It would most

likely be housed within the Consortium (or its host) and would grow as the

Consortium matures.

2. Coordination meetings

The Steering Committee and Working Groups will execute on their mission through

a series of meetings throughout the year. While participation will be voluntary, the

Consortium will need budget to cover meeting costs, including travel costs for those

committee members who require it. While the meeting schedule must be set by

Consortium leadership, a starting assumption may be that the Steering Committee

and working groups would meet in-person at least three times a year, with one

meeting being longer than the other two.

3. Water Data Science Team

The creation of the Platform will transform how California manages water data. To

help Agencies and reporting entities make this shift requires meaningful investments

in both technical training and development, as well as in culture change. A Water

Data Science Team could provide additional expert support to state agencies, as well

as external data providers as they implement the needed changes. The team could

build on successful models of 18F and the US Digital Service (see sidebar on page 23)

but tailor it to the specific expertise required around water data and the development

of the Platform.

30

Recruiting top data science talent has been pivotal to the success of these models in

the Federal government, and would represent a significant expense for the

Consortium. To manage those costs, the Consortium may want to consider whether

its needs are best met through a smaller number of full-time staff who can be

deployed to projects, or through maintaining a stable of available experts from a

range of relevant fields who could be contracted when needed.

3.3 A sustainable funding model for the Consortium

The Consortium budget would be met through a combination of state and philanthropic funds

The Consortium structure is designed to facilitate a more diversified, sustainable

funding portfolio for the Platform. Below, we outline four streams of funding to

support AB 1755 implementation. Three of those streams come from state resources.

We distinguish them here because they have distinct budgeting processes. AB 1755

implementation will draw on all four of these funding streams over time. While we

envision that the Consortium will require initial investments by state and

philanthropic funds, we anticipate that over time, these investments can be offset

with fees from a membership. This approach would provide an important source of

sustained funding for the organization, and create accountability for the Consortium

to the water management community it aims to serve.

Four streams of funding for data management

Existing agency and program budgets are the standing budgets allocated to state

agencies and programs. This is the primary source of ongoing funding for California

data collection and management activities.

The management of these budgets would not change under the Consortium, except

that the agencies and programs would provide greater transparency to each other and

to the Consortium around how the funds are allocated.

AB 1755-specific funding can be allocated on an annual basis by the legislature.

These funds could be used to cover state data collection and management activities

not covered by existing agency and program budgets. Because they are allocated on

an annual basis, they are not well suited to ongoing data collection and management

needs but could cover extraordinary costs associated with the development of and

transition to the Platform.

The allocation and management of these resources would remain the responsibility of

the state agencies and programs, and would not change under the Consortium

structure.

The Water Data Administration Fund was created by AB 1755 to support the

implementation of the bill. Appropriated funds are to be “available, upon

appropriation, to the Department, the State Board, or the Department of Fish and

Wildlife for the collection, management, and improvement of water and ecological

data for the purposes of the act.” In addition, the WDA Fund can receive voluntary

donations from a wide range of entities.

31

Under the proposed governance, monies put into the WDA Fund could be granted

to the Consortium, and managed by the Consortium to support implementation and

ongoing management of AB 1755. This appropriation may be done through a grant

or by other mechanisms determined by the state governing group.

A Consortium Fund would be created by the Consortium to receive fundraising

dollars. The Consortium Fund would be independent of the state and managed by the

Steering Committee in the Consortium. As a fund under the non-profit Consortium,

it could receive monies from private or corporate philanthropy; academic institutions;

local, state, or the Federal governments; and from business entities or organizations.

Monies in the Consortium Fund would be used to support Consortium activities, and

could be granted back to the state when funding resource and priorities allow.

To effectively and efficiently support implementation of AB 1755, these funding

streams must be coordinated. Similar to the governance structure, two levels of

coordination are important – intra-state coordination, and coordination between

California state government and the Consortium. Table 6, below, provides additional

detail on how coordination across these four funding streams could work between

the state and the Consortium.

32

Table 6. Management of funding sources to implement AB 1755

The Consortium could adopt a membership model as it matures

As the Consortium matures, it may want to consider developing membership fees to

support its ongoing activities.

Membership fees would have the advantage of diversifying the funding sources for

the Consortium. Just as important, however, membership fees also create an

important line of accountability between the Consortium and its participating

members. Through their support, the members gain more voice in the direction and

priorities of the organization. They also demonstrate to philanthropic and state

funders that they value the activities of the Consortium.

Funding

source

Use of funds State role Consortium role

Agencies’

existing

budgets

Ongoing state

agency activities

including data

collection,

management, and

publication.

State agencies would

continue to manage these

resources with no change

under the proposed

consortium structure.

State may provide grants to

the Consortium.

The state would provide

the Consortium

transparency into their

water data budgets to

support alignment with

Consortium resources.

Annual

allocation

for AB 1755-

specific

funding

Support

extraordinary costs

associated with the

transition to the

new data Platform,

State agencies would

continue to manage these

resources with no change

under the proposed

consortium structure.

State may provide grants to

the Consortium.

The state would provide

the Consortium

transparency into their

water data budgets to

support alignment with

Consortium resources.

State Water

Data

Administrati

on (WDA)

Fund

Granted to the

Consortium to

support

implementation

priorities

Grant funds to the

Consortium. Collaborate

through the Consortium to

set implementation

priorities.

Receive grants from the

state. Manage state grant

dollars in alignment with

set priorities for AB 1755

implementation.

Consortium

Fund

Consortium

activities

The state would have

visibility into the use of

Consortium funds to

facilitate alignment with

state priorities.

Development budget,

oversee use of the

Consortium Fund.

33

Consortium members could include: local, tribal, and Federal governments, utilities,

water agencies, water districts, State and Federal water contractors, engineering firms,

private industry, NGOs, GSA, or academic institutions.

Given the diversity of potential

members, the Consortium could

adopt a tiered membership model,

similar to the Open Geospatial

Consortium (see box to the right).

The structure could ensure that

entities are not precluded from

participation because of an

inability to pay, but that

participating organizations all

contribute to the smooth

functioning of the resource.

4. Moving to Platform Implementation California state government has generated impressive momentum in implementing

AB 1755 over the past year. The development of strong governance and sustainable

funding should help sustain that momentum, addressing a vital need in the formation

of the Platform.

In this final chapter, we would like to sketch some of the key next steps that will be

important as the state works to develop and standup governance and funding

structures for the Platform.

Take the opportunity to test and refine governance structure as part of the

test-bed process. Over the coming months, the state of California will develop a

test-bed network to pilot the draft data protocols and standards developed. The test-

bed approach provides the state with an opportunity to work through the kinks in the

proposed standards and protocols – to understand which of the existing protocols

and standards work, which need refinement, and where there are gaps.

The testbed process also provides a valuable opportunity for to test and refine

governance organization and processes for the Platform, starting with a pilot of the

state governing group, and expanding to integrate the Consortium that it gets up and

running. In piloting the state governing group, the state may also want to consider

whether it can build on or adapt existing entities, such as the Water Principals or the

California Water Quality Monitoring Council.

Work with anchor members and funders to refine and pilot the Consortium.

While this report identifies the value and basic structure of a Consortium to support

the state of California in implementation of AB 1755, it leaves the details and

The Open Geospatial Consortium The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is an

international industry consortium of over 500

companies, government agencies and universities who

work together to develop publicly available standards

for the interoperability of geospatial information. The

state of California was deeply involved in the

development and launch of the OGC, through the

University of California, Berkeley, which was one of

eight charter members for the Consortium.

34

mechanics of implementation for further discussion. This choice is deliberate, and

responds to the importance of the Consortium being shaped by those who will be its

members and funders. The next step in developing a consortium is to identify a core

group of founding members and funders who would be interested in investing in and

supporting the development of a pilot Consortium. Outreach to anchor members and

funders can complement ongoing state outreach by the state government, and

provide an important opportunity to test the perceived value of establishing a non-

state Consortium to coordinate open water data across California, with those that the

Consortium would seek to serve.

Once a core group of members and funders is organized, this group will need to

work together to refine the functions and processes of the Consortium, identify and

find leadership to direct the organization, and start building the technical and use-case

working groups alongside its membership.

Collaboratively identify priority use cases for the Platform. The process to

identify and choose use-cases to develop on the platform will be an important, early

opportunity for collaborative governance between the state governing group and the

emerging Consortium. California state government has initiated a preliminary process

to identify initial use-cases to help build the test-bed network. As the Consortium

takes shape, it will be important for the state governing group to engage with the

Consortium, and develop a process to collaboratively prioritize use-cases. Through

this process, they can identify data that are responsive to both the interests and

priorities of data providers and users outside of California state government, as well

as the priorities of the state.

Plan for an early win. An early win will build confidence that implementation of AB

1755 will result in a successful, impactful Platform, a Platform that can result in direct

improvements for water management across California. Early success will help attract

funding from non-state partners, and will also help attract the membership that will

provide long-term financial sustainability for the Platform. The Safe Drinking Water

Data Challenge, already underway, will provide an early example of the potential

collaborative power of open data. Further, choices of use case(s) will be critical to

realizing additional early wins and will be best accomplished through a broad base of

state and non-state collaborators. In planning for early wins, the state government

should look to opportunities that expand beyond just the publication of data. For

example, planning for an early win may involve identifying opportunities to reduce

reporting burdens of local data providers and/or data reports. Alternatively, it could

include identifying opportunities and partnership to integrate published data with

decision support tools that provide meaningful help to underserved populations.